[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18701-18706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7653]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Peary Caribou and Dolphin and Union Population
of the Barren-Ground Caribou as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list the Peary (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) and
the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground (R. t.
groenlandicus x pearyi) caribou as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are
initiating a review of the status of these two subspecies to determine
if listing these two subspecies is warranted. To ensure that this
status review is comprehensive, we request scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding these two subspecies. At the
conclusion of this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the
petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before June 6, 2011. After this date,
you must submit information directly to the office listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Please note that we may not
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the
above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001 and then follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0001; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species or subspecies may be
warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species
(conduct a status review). For the status review to be complete and
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we
request information on these two subspecies from governmental agencies
(including Canadian national and provincial governments), local
indigenous people of Canada (who also may be acknowledged as Native
American or Aboriginal tribes), the scientific community, industry, and
any other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) Each subspecies' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns,
particularly regarding their seasonal migrations;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected population trends;
(e) Potential threats to each subspecies such as mining, resource
extraction, or other threats not identified; and
(f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for each subspecies or
their habitat.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a) of the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, particularly data on hunting;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued
existence.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on each subspecies and
its habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all
[[Page 18702]]
hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding, will be available for you to review at
http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered
Species Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly review the status of the species, which is subsequently
summarized in our 12-month finding.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we look
beyond the exposure of the species to determine whether the species
responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the
species and we look at the magnitude of the effect. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a beneficial response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant the factor is. If the factor is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as
those terms are defined by the Act. However, the identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial.
The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these
factors may be operative threats that act on the species to the point
that the species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
Petition History
On September 15, 2009, we received a petition (also dated September
15, 2009), from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (hereafter
referred to as petitioner) requesting that two subspecies of barren-
ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus) be listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act. These two subspecies are the Peary caribou
(R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-
ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi). The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition was amended
on May 14, 2010, and the petitioner provided supplemental information
to the original petition. We consider this amended petition, along with
the previously submitted information, to be a new petition and the
statutory timeframes to begin on May 14, 2010. This finding addresses
the petition.
Species Information
Taxonomic Background
Banfield's 1961 taxonomic characterization listed nine subspecies
of caribou (R. tarandus), two of which are now extinct. Peary caribou
was first taxonomically described by J. A. Allen in 1902. The Dolphin
and Union caribou was described in 1960 as R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi
by Manning. Prior to 1979, Peary caribou (R. t. pearyi) and the Dolphin
and Union caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi) were considered the
same subspecies. In 1991, three populations of R. t. pearyi were
recognized; Banks Island, High Arctic, and Low Arctic. In 2003, Zittlau
et al. found (pp. 593-598) that the Dolphin and Union population of
barren-ground caribou is genetically distinct from both Peary and
mainland barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). In 2004, the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
recognized four populations of Peary caribou. We accept Peary caribou
as a subspecies because of the genotypic and phenotypic evidence
presented by COSEWIC (2004, p. 17).
Also in 2004, COSEWIC clarified that the Dolphin and Union
population of the barren-ground caribou (R. t. groenlandicus x pearyi)
is comprised of a portion of the former ``Low Arctic population'' of
Peary caribou. Although most entities agree that the Dolphin and Union
population is a valid subspecies, the taxonomic reclassification
process can be slow, and the Dolphin and Union population has not yet
been taxonomically reclassified. For the purpose of this finding, we
consider the Dolphin and Union population of the barren-ground caribou
to be a valid subspecies and treat it as such. Throughout this finding,
we will refer to this subspecies as the Dolphin and Union caribou.
General Habitat Characteristics and Life History
Both subspecies live in an ecological grazing system in which
abiotic factors such as snow, rain, and ice largely determine their
fate (COSEWIC 2004, p. 54). Food shortages can have a significant
effect on caribou populations in these ecosystems. In the winter of
1973-1974, both subspecies experienced a population crash--freezing
rain created sheets of ice, forming a barrier that covered the
caribou's food sources and subsequently caused mass starvation (Miller
et al. 1977a in Miller and Gunn 2003, p. 2). Their nutrition is closely
related to plant phenology (timing of plant blooming based on daylight
and temperature). Seasonal feeding is critical for various life stages
such as lactation and growth during the spring, increasing fat reserves
during the summer, and simply surviving during the winter. Caribou
generally migrate great distances in search of food; some herds travel
significantly greater distances than others. The distance traveled
likely depends on food availability (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 29-30). Caribou
forage by pushing snow off the vegetation with their noses, but when
snowpack is deeper, they will dig small craters in the snow to reach
the vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, p. 35).
Peary Caribou
Description
With an average total body length of 1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet
(ft)), the Peary caribou is relatively small and short when compared to
other caribou species (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 9-10).
Distribution and Population
Peary caribou are endemic to the Queen Elizabeth Islands in
northeastern Canada, in the provinces of Nunavut and the Northwest
Territories. They exist in the Canadian Arctic Islands and coastal
Greenland, but live mainly on the islands of the Canadian archipelago.
The four populations of Peary caribou are generally delineated as
follows: (1) Queen Elizabeth Islands, (2) Banks
[[Page 18703]]
Island and NW Victoria Island, (3) Prince of Wales and Somerset
Islands, and (4) Boothia Peninsula (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). This
subspecies is rarely found on the mainland (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 13-14).
Their habitat spans 800,000 km\2\ (308,882 mi \2\) between 20 Queen
Elizabeth islands and the other 3 island groups listed above (COSEWIC
2004, pp. vi, 19). Other than subsistence hunting when allowed, the
Peary subspecies is generally not directly affected by human activities
due to the remoteness of their habitat (COSEWIC 2004, p. 50).
The historical population and population trends are difficult to
estimate due to differences in survey methodology, the remoteness of
their island habitat, and the movements of Peary caribou between
islands, and the taxonomic uncertainty prior to 2004. An assessment
completed in 1991 indicated that between 1961 and 1987 the population
of Peary caribou likely decreased by 86 percent (Miller 1991). COSEWIC
further estimates that in the last 40 years, Peary caribou have
declined 84 percent (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 36-37). In 2004, the total
population estimate for Peary caribou was 7,890 individuals, including
calves (COSEWIC 2004, p. 62). Although population estimates for the
Peary caribou have been typically unreliable, in part due to the
remoteness of the species, the 2004 estimate is believed to be fairly
accurate.
Habitat Characteristics
Peary caribou migrate between the various islands based on
availability of vegetation, and may recolonize islands that were
abandoned in previous years (Ferguson and Messier 2000, p. 173). They
have been documented migrating up to 450 km (280 mi) between islands in
search of food and calving grounds (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 19, 30). Peary
caribou migrate from northwestern Victoria Island to the Minto Inlet
area (Gunn and Fournier 2000, pp. 15-57). However, some caribou remain
faithful to one particular island despite the absence of food sources
(Miller 2002 in COSEWIC 2004, p. 30). It is unclear why some caribou
migrate and others do not, but the majority of caribou engage in some
degree of migration.
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Peary caribou is assessed as ``endangered'' by the
Canadian Government (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19). Neither subspecies addressed
in this finding is listed on any appendices of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). Caribou are protected by land claim agreements within Canada,
and hunts are managed by regulatory entities such as the Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) and hunting and trapping associations
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Native tribes who hunt caribou for subsistence
have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past; as of 2004, a
moratorium was still in place. Peary caribou have been assessed as
endangered since 1996 by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
Dolphin and Union Caribou
Description
The Dolphin and Union caribou is generally larger than Peary
caribou but smaller than the mainland population of barren-ground
caribou (R. t. groenlandicus). The pelage (coloring) of Dolphin and
Union caribou is slightly darker than Peary caribou and their antler
velvet is grey (like the Peary caribou) but is distinct from mainland
barren-ground caribou, which do not have grey antler velvet.
Distribution and Population
The Dolphin and Union caribou primarily reside on the southern part
of Victoria Island and its range does not overlap with Peary caribou.
Seasonally, they cross the frozen ice of the Dolphin and Union Strait
to winter on the mainland. Their range consists of the lower part of
Victoria Island (excluding northwestern Victoria Island), and is
estimated to be 195,417 km\2\ (75,451 mi \2\) and Stefansson Island
(4,463 km\2\ (1723 mi \2\)).
A 1922 estimate (Anderson, cited in COSEWIC 2004, p. 41) indicated
that between 100,000 and 200,000 caribou migrated across the Dolphin
and Union Strait to Victoria Island. Using other caribou population
densities as a proxy, Manning (1960), indicated that 100,000 was likely
a more realistic estimate. In 1973, both subspecies experienced a
population crash due to freezing rain and sheets of ice (Miller et al.
1977). In 1980, a survey by Jackimchuck and Carruthers indicated that
there were approximately 3,400 Dolphin and Union caribou on Victoria
Island (COSEWIC 2004, p. 41). Gunn et al. (2000, p. 43) estimated the
southern Victoria Island population to be 14,600 caribou in 1994 and
27,800 caribou in 1997. This herd does not appear to have been surveyed
since then. The 2004 COSEWIC report indicates the population is
estimated to be approximately 25,000 and the population appears to be
stable or increasing (pp. viii and 15).
Conservation Status
As of 2004, the Dolphin and Union caribou is assessed as ``Special
Concern'' (COSEWIC 2004, p. 19) by the Canadian Government. It is not
listed on any CITES appendices. Hunts are managed by boards such as the
NWMB, the Canadian Department of Environment, and hunting associations
(COSEWIC 2004, p. 61). Indigenous tribes who hunt caribou for
subsistence have voluntarily placed moratoriums on hunts in the past.
IUCN in 2008 listed R. tarandus at the species level, as least concern.
The IUCN criteria are designed for global taxon assessments (IUCN 2003,
p. 1). Before assessments of taxa below the species level (subspecies,
variety or subpopulation) can be included on the IUCN Red List, an
assessment of the full species is required. No assessment has been made
of this subspecies by the IUCN.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Following is a threats assessment in which we evaluate whether any
of these factors threaten or endanger these two subspecies. This
evaluation is specific to each subspecies unless specified that the
evaluation is for both subspecies. In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information regarding threats to both the Peary and
Dolphin and Union subspecies, as presented in the petition and based on
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation
of this information is presented below.
[[Page 18704]]
Peary Caribou
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Peary Caribou's Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that global climate change due to global
warming presents the largest threat to the Peary caribou's habitat in
that previously frozen water surrounding the Queen Elizabeth Islands
will become navigable to large ships associated with shipping and oil
exploration and these ships will threaten caribou movement. In this
finding, we will evaluate climate change threats under Factor E. Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence.
Climate change was the only stressor asserted as having an effect on
this subspecies under Factor A by the petitioner. Although we
determined that the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that listing the Peary caribou as endangered or threatened
may be warranted under factor A, we intend to assess the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Peary
caribou's habitat or range more thoroughly during the status review.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner does not indicate that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes is
currently contributing to the decline of the Peary caribou. Nor do we
have other data in our files that this factor is a threat to the Peary
caribou. Therefore, we determine that the petition does not present
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted due
to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioner acknowledged that disease is not thought to be a
significant factor affecting either subspecies of caribou addressed in
this finding. We concur with the petitioner that, based on the
information provided with the petition and information available in our
files, disease is not currently a threat to either subspecies.
The petitioner asserted that if climate change caused significant
increases in snowfall, caribou could be more susceptible to attacks by
wolves. We acknowledge that caribou are preyed upon by various
predators such as wolves. However, information presented in the
petition and available in our files does not indicate that the effect
of increased predation by predators would increase such that it rises
to the level of a threat to either subspecies (Miller 1998, in COSEWIC
2004, p. 50; Gunn 2005, pp. 10-11, 39-41). Therefore, we determined
that the petition does not present substantial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease or predation.
However, all factors, including threats from disease or predation, will
be evaluated when we conduct our status review.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner asserts that the regulatory mechanisms with respect
to climate change are inadequate to protect both the Peary caribou and
the Dolphin and Union caribou. Because this factor is applicable to
both subspecies, this evaluation under Factor D applies to both
subspecies in this finding. The petitioner indicates that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to global
climate change is the gravest threat to the long-term survival of these
two subspecies. The petitioner discussed the ineffectiveness of various
regulatory mechanisms associated with climate change such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto
Protocol, and United States climate initiatives.
Currently, there are no regulatory mechanisms in place that
effectively address climate change and associated changes in habitat or
sea-ice or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. International efforts to
address climate change began with the UNFCCC, which was adopted in May
1992. The UNFCCC's objective is stabilization of GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system, but it does not impose any
mandatory and enforceable restrictions on GHG emissions. The Kyoto
Protocol became the first agreement to set GHG emissions targets for
signatory counties, but the targets are not mandated. Current
international efforts to regulate GHG emissions are focused on
emissions targets, monitoring requirements, and voluntary actions. None
of these mechanisms establish mandatory requirements limiting the
amount of GHG that may be emitted. For several decades, the surface air
temperatures in the Arctic have warmed at approximately twice the
global rate (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 904). The observed and
projected effects of climate change are most extreme during summer in
northern high-latitude regions, in large part due to the ice-albedo
(reflective property) feedback mechanism, in which melting of snow and
sea ice lowers surface reflectivity, thereby further increasing surface
warming from absorption of solar radiation.
The petitioner provided information with the petition that states
that climate change may result in irregular winter events such as
freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not allow caribou
access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). Both subspecies of
caribou forage by pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking
through hard-packed snow to reach vegetation. If these conditions
occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation (Miller and
Gunn, 2003, p. 6). Energetic costs will increase if they have to travel
greater distances to locate food. Over time, poor body condition could
lead to lower reproductive rates, greater susceptibility to disease or
predation, and possibly higher mortality rates. Currently, there are no
regulatory mechanisms in place that effectively address a warming
climate and its consequences for both subspecies of caribou addressed
in this finding due to associated changes in habitat. Accordingly, we
conclude that there is substantial information presented in the
petition or readily available in our files to indicate that regulatory
mechanisms in place may be inadequate to effectively address changes in
habitat or sea-ice habitat relied upon by these two subspecies of
caribou. We find that the information provided presents substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for
both subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain
based on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. We will
evaluate this factor further for each subspecies during the status
review.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Subspecies' Continued
Existence
The petitioner states that global warming due to global climate
change presents the largest threat to both subspecies of caribou. The
petitioner asserts that the Arctic is warming more rapidly than other
areas on the globe. If warming occurs, there may be less sea ice
available for crossing from one island to another in search of
vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 54-55; Atkinson et al. 2006, pp. 350,
355, 357). The petitioner asserts that climate change will cause Peary
caribou to use more energy in search of food by migrating farther. Some
of the information provided with the petition supports these assertions
(Thomas 1982, pp. 597-
[[Page 18705]]
602; Struzik 1998, pp. 38-44). Both subspecies of caribou forage by
pushing snow away from vegetation and by breaking through hard-packed
snow to reach vegetation. The petitioner provided information with the
petition that states that climate change may result in irregular winter
events such as freezing rain or heavy snow accumulation, which may not
allow caribou access to vegetation (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 51-52). If these
conditions occur, both species could suffer widespread starvation
(Miller and Gunn, 2003, p. 6). This type of starvation has been the
primary cause of decline in the past. The extreme mortality events--
between 1973 and 1974 and between 1994 and 1997--coincided with
extremely heavy snowfall, deep snow packs, and heavy icing in those
same years (Miller and Gunn 2003, pp. 5-6). After reviewing the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
find that the information provided presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for both
subspecies due to increased snowfall events and freezing rain.
Low genetic diversity was an issue raised by the petitioner as a
stressor on the subspecies. We will further evaluate this during the
status review.
Dolphin and Union Caribou
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Dolphin and Union Caribou's Habitat or Range
The petitioner states that the waters of the Dolphin and Union
Strait will become navigable to large ships in the near future based on
decreased sea ice due to global warming, and that these ships will
disrupt caribou movement. The petitioner suggested that shipping
traffic has, in the past, interrupted the migration of the Dolphin and
Union caribou. Other than expression of concern, the supporting
information did not indicate that this increase in shipping traffic has
had a negative impact on the subspecies (COSEWIC 2004, pp. 46-47). The
petitioner also suggests that caribou will be adversely affected by the
increasing development associated with shipping and oil exploration.
Although oil development and increased shipping may occur, there is no
evidence that it will have a significant effect on caribou. After
reviewing the information provided in the petition and available in our
files, it does not support the claim that oil exploration, and an
increase in shipping, development, and related human activity will
affect the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat.
The petitioner provides no other information addressing Factor A,
and we have no information in our files indicating that listing the
subspecies due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat or range may
be warranted. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present
substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be
warranted based on the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioner identifies hunting of the Dolphin and Union caribou
as a possible factor in the decline of this subspecies. The petition
reports that this subspecies is hunted by the Inuit for subsistence,
and it is also hunted commercially along the mainland on the north
coast bordering the Dolphin and Union Strait. Various management units
such as the NWMB, the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the
Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Northwest Territories, the Canadian
Department of Environment, and the Inuit and Inuvialuit tribes play a
role in the regulation of hunting of the various caribou populations at
the larger scale. At more local scales, committees and trapper
associations are involved in monitoring caribou. Hunting has not been
implicated as a causative factor in any of the major caribou die-offs.
The hunting of this subspecies appears to be sufficiently managed by
the local hunting boards, the local indigenous peoples of Canada such
as the Inuit and Inuvialuit, who are allowed to hunt caribou for
subsistence. Based on the information available in the petition and in
our files, hunting does not appear to be causing a decline in the
Dolphin and Union caribou.
The petitioner did not indicate any other threats under this
factor. After reviewing the information provided in the petition and
available in our files, we find that the information provided does not
present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Refer to the discussion under Factor C above for Peary caribou for
additional information. Based on the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the petition does not
present substantial information indicating that listing the Dolphin and
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted due to
disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Refer to the discussion under Factor D above for Peary caribou for
additional information. After reviewing the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the information
provided presents substantial information indicating that listing the
Dolphin and Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted
due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of Dolphin and Union Caribou
The petitioner states that global climate change presents the
greatest threat to the Dolphin and Union caribou's habitat. We
currently do not know the extent of the subspecies' capacity to adapt
to potential changes in its habitat resulting from climate change.
However, there is an upward trend in temperature which may decrease sea
ice in the Dolphin and Union Strait (refer to discussion above). This
subspecies crosses the sea ice in the Strait seasonally, and this
decrease in sea ice may affect the species' migration patterns and
availability to access food sources. Seasonally, herds congregate at
the edge of the Strait while waiting for the ice to form. Energetic
costs will increase if they have to travel greater distances to locate
food sources, and foraging efficiency is reduced. Over time, poor body
condition could lead to lower reproductive rates, greater
susceptibility to disease or predation, and ultimately higher mortality
rates. The loss of seasonal ice across the Dolphin and Union Strait
could reduce access to traditional foraging areas and it may increase
competition among individuals for food resources in areas close to
staging grounds. After reviewing the information provided in the
petition and available in our files, we find that the information
provided presents substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to changes in sea ice (also
refer to the discussion under Factor E above for Peary caribou). We
intend to investigate the effects of climate change, particularly the
changes in sea ice, on the Dolphin and Union caribou during the status
review.
[[Page 18706]]
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing both the Peary and Dolphin and
Union caribou as endangered or threatened may be warranted. This
finding is based on information evaluated under factors D and E for
both subspecies. Because we have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing these two subspecies
may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine
whether listing these two subspecies of caribou as endangered or
threatened under the Act is warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Branch of Foreign
Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 11, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-7653 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P